October 25, 2008

Ha ha. Wow. You don't usually get questions like that. Biden can't believe it. But, you know, Biden handles it perfectly well. I don't see him losing his cool. He's fine. Good questions. Good answers. Ah, but what is lame is cutting off all future interviews with the station. Pussies!

Great to see that Althouse has discovered the power of, you know, the press doing their job and asking real questions.

Now, let's take a magical trip down memory lane to this comment I posted here in January of this year concerning Althouse being invited to a McCain conference call:

---------------I'm not surprised he'd ask for more questions, since the ones he was asked were so incredibly weak. Are you an agent of change? Do you have enough money? Fifth graders running for student body president could field those with ease.

In fact, I'll send Althouse $5 via PayPal if she asks McCain this question for the next call.

All she has to do is read it and write down (or record if permitted) the response, and she'll get $5.---------------

Needless to say, Althouse either never asked McCain a question or asked him something about shoes or something.

“I have never engaged in class warfare. I am very much in favor of tax cuts for middle-income and lower-income Americans. I’m deeply concerned about a kind of class warfare that’s going on right now. It’s unfortunate. There’s a growing gap between the haves and have-nots in America, and that gap is growing, and it’s unfortunately divided up along ethnic lines."

Is the person who said that a Marxist, or Socialist, or Pinko Communist, or whatever? Because the person who said that is John McCain.

I'm telling you, Republicans: this is a bad way to go. Pretending the Bush-era tax code is the natural way of things does allow you to call the democrats marxists, which I bet feels good. But you'll still lose the election, and it's long-term suicide. The democrats will happily be the party that modestly benefits 95% of the income spectrum.

Roost: Do you understand that Obama's "tax cuts" are in fact going to give a lot of people a bigger "refund" than they actually pay in right now? How is that not just giving someone my money (assuming I owe some tax)?

It is just fundamentally wrong, I don't care who suggests it. And McCain is scary too. Just not nearly so.

Why is it that when Governor Palin gets asked unfair / unfounded / misleading questions by pretend journalists - Palin gets ripped by the left for her answers. Yet, when Biden gets asked tough - but fair - questions by a genuine reporter, it's the reporter who gets ripped by the left for her questions? Hmmm, I have clue - the ones getting ripped are woman.

Pogo, it's called a progressive tax system, which we already have. He plans on raising taxes on people who make more money at a rate not even as high as it was under Clinton. Spreading the wealth? Socialism? Fine. Call it whatever you want...no one's buying it except the hard right. I hope 4 years from now everyone who was freaking out will be able to admit they were wrong.

“We had an opportunity to provide much more tax relief to millions of hard-working Americans. . . . I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief.”

Notice how a left-winger like ZPS doesn't even think this person is a "genuine" reporter

It's no secret that the majority of reporters are biased, and this gal happens to be one of the few biased towards the right. If you watch her interview with McCain, it's painfully obvious. Just thought I'd complain about a right wing media person to balance out the rest of you who might be lauding her for her being so awesome.

Roost: You know...I just don't agree that rich people should pay a higher percentage of tax on their income - and I'm not even close to rich. I just never will. So maybe I disagree with McCain here, too. But I don't think he is talking about "refunding" money that people haven't paid in to begin with. The "middle class" is used to describe a wide range of Americans, I think.

I think Pogo's calling it what Obama himself called it. He called his policy spreading the wealth around. Enjoy it while it lasts, because when it shipwrecks the economy, you'll be paying it back and then some.

"I hope 4 years from now everyone who was freaking out will be able to admit they were wrong."

The instant any Supreme Court justice dies or retires during Obama's tenure, I'll be proved right. If I were you, I wouldn't make such a rash claim about Obama's incompetency or mandacity; he will do what he says he will do.

Please tell me then, why do you favor socialism when every example of it has repeatedly failed, and repeatedly ended up harming the very people it purports to benefit, dating from the Incas through the Soviets and to modern day England?

Why do you wish to expand a system that has failed so miserably every time it's been used?

Why do you favor a system that inevitably denies people freedom and just as inevitably results in state coercion restricting freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of movement, and the confiscation and denial of private property.

Pogo - avarice. Zach thinks that Obama's going to take money from those horrible mean rich people and give him some. As motives go, it's common in every sense of the word. (My mom would admonish me when I was young and doing something inappropriate: "oh, don't do that; it's so common.)

Of course Zachary is not worried about tax increases on "the wealthy" or the further entrenchment and implementation of socialism in America: the last time I heard he was unemployed and living with his parents. The perfect socialist!

Obama voters want America to quit its job and move in with its parents.

I thought the spin Binden put on that Marx quote was pretty impressive. After he said no he briefly explains what how Obama is GOING TO spread the wealth around. Kinda funny! Such a great illuminati tactic! i think she was scared of Biden, funny!

Actually, the republicans are pushing for the Fair Tax. It abolishes ALL federal taxes on wages and replaces them with a 23% sales tax. It incentivizes (sp) savings and abolishes most of the tax reporting and IRS functions. Nice start to reducing the size of government!

Every household is sent a prebate every month to offset sales taxes on food and necessities based on household occupancy. They have a bill introduced in congress where, since them dems are in power, it is stalled.

There is a book that explains it. Written by Neal Boortz and Johnny Isakson. It is such a revolutionary concept that Ireland is about to change their system and go to it. They were recently there to meet with the parties in power on how it works.

BTW Ireland has the lowest corporate tax rate of any industrialized nation and is eating everyone's lunch US, China, India, and the EU.

As an added benefit, it taxes those folks living and working outside the current system who currently pay no taxes, like drug dealers, prostitutes, illegals, etc.

It is structured to not take effect until the repeal of the (I think it's) 16th Amendment which would make income taxes illegal again. That way congress can't decide to double dip with sales tax and income tax.

Back in the Clinton days, I was making between 50-60k a year working for a start up telecommunications company and then AT&T. I hated seeing so much of my paycheck going to taxes, but it was worth it. I was still making enough money to buy a new car, spend tons on entertainment, clothes, travel, save some, etc.

Since Bush took office I've been laid off from two jobs, had to sell my car, and yes, Palladian, move home to my parents. So, you ask me whose economic policies I prefer. And Obama's proposed tax rates are still lower than what Clinton's were.

And until this summer, Bush's unemployment numbers were on par with the Clinton era (excepting the 6 mos following 9/11, but that wasn't a normal economic event).

I just finished up an IT contract and am back out in the market for my next gig. Can't say that the market looks bleak from here. There are boatloads of projects starting up and contractors like me are in demand. Usually, we are the first to go in a downturn but not this time, so far. I suspect that many companies are opting for contractors to avoid the tax headaches inherent in the Obama tax and healthcare schemes. We don't go against headcount, and it is the contracting agency that is responsible for healthcare, 401k etc.

1jpb, as a McCain spokesman noted, they don't allow Daily Kos diarists to travel on the campaign plane, so why should they allow Joe Klein on the campaign plane? What you don't seem to grasp is that Klein and Dowd aren't "journalists" any more, in the usual sense of the word; they are, at this point, deputy communications officers for the Obama campaign. Have you read Klein's latest piece in Time? It reads as though Michelle Obama drafted it. Why should total inability to do the job for which they're paid be rewarded with access?

BJM said... "Maureen Dowd is an elitist scold, not a journalist."

I have a suspicion that in modern American usage, "elitist" has become commingled to some extent with "aritstocrat." An aristocracy is a permanent elite where the rise, fall and interplay of a meritocracy has ceased to function. I'm okay with elitism, to the extent that it's healthy. I'm not okay with aristocracy - the idea that because Biden has been there for a long time he must be part of the "elite" and therefore entitled, for example.

Pogo, if progressive taxes are socialist, it's hard to know where to start. I mean, you think the Reagan administration was socialist. At least admit that with this as the definition, it is no longer a politically feasible scare word.

Darcy, no problem, and good morning.

Your question again, was: What should be the ceiling on the income tax? I'm not an economist, and I don't have a very sophisticated answer. But it seems to me that there are two big dangers to overloading the high end of the tax bracket. Both very real.

The first is is that it could serve as a disincentive to growth. It could make hard work not worth it, or more likely, it could make economic risk not worth it. I don't think we're near the point where that happens, and that was what my 10:26 post was getting at.

The second is that it could make doing big business in the USA a bad prospect. Again, this is an actual real-life problem that needs to be considered. But the GOP certainly doesn't have the answer to this one, just look at where your clothes are made. Target isn't going to go under during an Obama administration. The USA is a very lucrative place to do business, even burdened with Pogo's charge of socialism. We are (currently, but with no future guarantee) a truly exceptional nation.

Obama's sillier detractors call him a socialist. And truly, he is considerably "to the left" of Bush and post-2004 McCain. But he is not a "Socialist", or if he is, we all are. To challenge him as one is to not challenge him at all.

His eyes look really bad. The male equivalent to the really obvious boob job. Surgeon's should be really aware of how bad their work looks on HDTV. Every time he looks down, his eyes pull. And that with the botox... OMG... it just ain't natural looking.

What is so jarring, even to a hard core conservative like me, is hearing these questions being asked in the first place. These are basic questions, but it is so unexpected to actually hear them, we are so used to the MSM frame everything.

It is not surprising to see the reaction from the left, attack the reporter as to whether she is a "real" reporter , shut down the station for any future press access. (I expect attacks on her make-up next). If you ask the Dems uncomfortable questions they come after you hammer and tong (see: Joe The Plumber), If we have an Obama administration I expect this pattern to continue.

Like the emailer that Glen highlights, what is he complaining about?

"He got a straighter run than Palin has. No one edited his answers. No one used false quotes against him. No one edited the video tape. No one took him out of context. No one pissed and moaned about his wardrobe or his hair plugs. No one has asked to see his kid's birth ceritifcate. Thin skinned much, Obama campaign?"- C.J. Burch

Insta- Note that they're only getting these questions from local TV. There was a time when network folks laughed at softball local TV coverage, but in this election we've seen more hard coverage of Obama et al. from local media.

Being young has nothing to do with realizing what economic policies work for the majority of people.

Even Greenspan didn't know, so please. Write a damn book if you've got what economics policies work for the majority of people. I'm pretty sure its not got anything to do with the government spreading wealth around.

Back in the Clinton days, I was making between 50-60k a year working for a start up telecommunications company and then AT&T. I hated seeing so much of my paycheck going to taxes, but it was worth it. I was still making enough money to buy a new car, spend tons on entertainment, clothes, travel, save some, etc.

Since Bush took office I've been laid off from two jobs, had to sell my car, and yes, Palladian, move home to my parents. So, you ask me whose economic policies I prefer. And Obama's proposed tax rates are still lower than what Clinton's were.

My sister was talking about a liberal friend of hers... unemployed under Clinton, since then employed in a social services government job of some sort and even has been promoted, even though Bush is supposed to be so evil and mean her career and job is funded.

She still thinks Bush is terrible.

What does our employment or not have to do with it?

We were making obscene money pre- tech bubble burst. Nothing about the situation was stable and even in the Bay Area during the crazy time a person *knew* it wasn't stable... it just couldn't be. People were being paid well over six figures to produce *nothing*. Oh, they worked really hard, but effort isn't automatically revenue producing.

I don't think it had anything at all to do with who was president and making way way less money now has nothing to do with who is president.

"Back in the Clinton days, I was making between 50-60k a year working for a start up telecommunications company and then AT&T."

We have something in common Zach.

I retired from the military in 1994, and went to work in a software startup. Since then I'm on my fourth startup.

Zach, who do you think funded that nice startup job you had? Was it a poor person?

How about that good job with ATT. Do you think that higher taxes on ATT and other large employers would have increased or decreased the likelihood of your keeping that job, or getting another one like it?

We can't all work for the government, a school or college, or a 'non-profit'.

Somewhere some of us, like you and I, Zach, have to actually create the wealth that Obama wants to spread around.

Punishing large employers and especially investors annoys rich people, but it devastates middle class people like you and me.

Roost:If I make $300,000 and you make $30,000, you spend 1% of your income on food tax. I spend .1%

Yeah, and if you buy a $30K car (but who does that with a $300k income?), you're back to spending 1% of your income on taxes. If people only spent their money on the essentials, your assumptions might work. But they, uh, don't.

The "isn't that Marxist" question was a refreshing one. When is the last time there's been an effort to dig into a politician's underlying political philosophy, even if the candidate disagrees?Biden answers the question incoherently, denying that Obama wants to spread the wealth around.Well, since he did, maybe the question isn't such a joke. Progressive taxation, which has broad support throughout the United States, can be sold, rightly, as a means of placing tax incidence on those most able to pay. Obama, in his "spread the wealth around" comment, argues for a redistributionist policy, one made more pronounced by his plan to do no more with the increase than to give it away to lower earners.The "potentially crushing political blow" question is silly, because Obama is not being crushed by his comment, and what is Sen. Biden going to say, "yes, and we're suspending our campaign"?

Considering that ZPS is working for himself now, we do have the makings of a conservative! Please recall that President Clinton was confronted by a republican congress which kept him in check and euchered him into signing welfare reform. Now I do believe that Bill Clinton was, at heart, a centrist; I cannot say the same for Barack Obama. Should Obama win the presidency with a left leaning congress, please let us know in four years if you are better off or not. Since neither of us know, it will be an interesting experience.

Antiphone: why no comments on Instapundit? It's his blog. He gets to set the rules for his blog. This does in no way restrict you: You are certainly free to create your own blog and set your own rules. Feel free.

Roost,I thought about this a long time, and even considered providing an answer about "What is socialism?" to you.

But if you cannot even be bothered to look up the term on your own, and are so proud of your ignorance that you dismiss it out of hand as 'undefinable' or 'just a word', the discussion is pointless. An argument about socialism presupposes even a rudimentary knowledge of its principles and effects. But you display a blank slate on it..

I find that alarming.

Hint: World War 2 was fought in part over its precepts, George Orwell wrote '1984' and 'Animal Farm' about it (though Huxley's 'Brave New World' comes closer to the truth in England and now the US), the idea swept the world in the early 20th century and brought us the New Deal under FDR, it explains the recurrent economic catastrophes in African nations (and the upcoming one in Venezuela), and 100 million people died because of its pursuit in the 20th century.

How can all that be explained to a modern adult in these times who seems completely and proudly unaware of it?

Where to start you ask?Indeed. That is why we are doomed, because of people like you.

Pogo said... Roost and Zachary:Obama admitted he was going to "Spread the wealth". That's an entirely socialist sentiment, and you cannot color it any other way.

It's called a progressive income tax, the philosophy behind it being that people as they get lower in economic strata pay a heavier proportion of their income in regressive taxes and fees, plus basic living expenses. So the income tax should be progressive.Nor is it socialist. Time and time again, America has had a conflict between the belief that democracy requires a stable. large middle class - and capitalist owners desires to keep all new wealth gained from technology advances and worker productivity to themselves - concentrating the wealth in the hands of just a few.

We now have the greatest wealth imbalance seen in America since the eve of the Great Depression. Obama proposes to do what FDR did - break the lock on wealth only going to the top people - when all workers who contributed, and the People of America who created the necessary infrastructure fatcats flourish in - and re-strengthen the middle class and create new opportunity for them and the working poor for a better future.

*****************Darcy said... Roost: You know...I just don't agree that rich people should pay a higher percentage of tax on their income - and I'm not even close to rich. I just never will.

Darcy, if you make between 45K and 90K, chances are you pay 20-25% of your earnings in Total Taxes, plus add another 7% for FICA, and knock off 18K of your earnings, 25K if you live in an expensive area - for basic living necessities.

Chances are, only 30-40% of your earnings for each dollar you get is truly discretionary. About the same for Warren Buffet's 2nd or 3rd office secretary.Whereas Warren Buffet says he does not use legal, but sleazy dodges and writeoffs the rich wrote into the tax code - but he still gets 80% of his earnings as discretionary - and thinks that is the rich rigging the deck. Warren gets so much back on each dollar because FICA, regressive state and local taxes & fees only nick him for under 1% off each buck he gets. And the big thing is most his earnings are capital gains at 10-15% tax, vs. the 30% his secretary has to pay if she works lots of OT. And as a canny businessman, he then can invest that wealth in businesses that reinvest and pay execs with fully deductable options and perks, so his discretionary dollars can compound largely tax-free. Unlike his secretary who has to pay full state and federal taxes on her "income" from savings and common mutual funds.

When this is brought up, Right-Wingers generally see Buffets point as "Marxist" and dismiss all taxes and living expense minimum as "not relevant" to the Federal Income Tax.

But those factors are why we have a progressive tax. Which, right now, is not doing what it should do because 3/4ths of America's wealth has now concentrated in the top 10% - up from 50% in the early 80s. And 28% of our nations private wealth is owned by the Richest 1%, up from 10% in the late 70s.If Obama and the Democrats can help out the bottom 95% of Americans and end this destructive accumulation at the top of most America's economic gains, it will be a good thing.****************Stephanie said... And until this summer, Bush's unemployment numbers were on par with the Clinton era (excepting the 6 mos following 9/11, but that wasn't a normal economic event).

The dirty secret is that Bush disguised the loss of good-paying industrial jobs then the loss of area "service" jobs by growing the Federal Gov't and it's jobs by 40%, more than LBJ did. Ironically, by borrowing from the same people (the Chinese) to create Fed jobs to replace private sector jobs lost to China. The second dirty secret is that once someone is unemployed for longer than unemployment insurance runs, they are dropped from the official unemployed stats. We have regions in Ohio and Michigan where people have been without work 4-5 years and basically stuck because their spouse has a government job they cannot move away from. In some cities, Bush has claimed record low unemployment rates despite 40% of inner city blacks being jobless. Jobless, you see - is not the same at all as being counted as being recently jobless and thus "legitimately" unemployed - which is tracked.

Traditional capitalist values morph into "hard core right wing" through the lens of the new class, which doesn't even know its more than decent lifestyle is made possible by the selfish business class.

So I go grab a little breakfast; salami and egg on an English muffin with provolone and parsley. Wash it down with diet Dr. Pepper. (How’s that for classy!)

I rush back only to find my cherished link to Sen. Clinton chugging Crown Royal has met the same terrible fate as my cherished avatar link to “Mot.” They are both now lost socks in the cosmic clothes washing machine that is the internet.

What am I to do?

It really wasn’t all that amusing anyway.

And in the blogitorium, things are supposed to be ephemeral, anyway . . .

"But those factors are why we have a progressive tax. Which, right now, is not doing what it should do because..."

...because they do not work.

All such social reengineering always always always fails. But try try try again you will.

And yes progressive taxes are socialist. Whatever makes you think they aren't?

In 1848 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels frankly proposed "2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax." as one of the measures by which, after the first stage of the revolution, "the proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeois, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state."

"One more week till we send the ignorant bigoted fascist back to Alaska."

Unless we elect to send her to Washington because when we stop to seriously consider having a president who was indoctrinated by Rev. Jeremiah Wright, associated with Bill Ayers, and in cahoots with Tony Rezko, we decide, no, the devil we know, John McCain, will be bad enough.

One more reason I'll be voting for McCain/Palin: to hopefully give the demented downtownlads and phony so-called feminists a final merciful shove over the edge of derangement they've been clinging to for the past 8 years so they can hit bottom and be put out of their misery.

Our public spaces are increasingly coverered by surveillance cameras. Our news media is a terrible source of information. Our federal government maintains secret overseas prisons, has declared endless war on an abstract enemy, and monitors the private communications of its citizens. This stuff all became true in the last decade.

How is it that progressive taxation, the kind we've had all our lives, is what makes you worry about 1984?

It's socialism to take from the richer to give to the poorer. It's also socialism to take from the poorer to give to the richer, as the recent Wall Street bailout initiated by the Republicans and approved by the Democrats has done.

But is it socialism to take from the richer INSTEAD of the poorer? I don't think so.

The poster who keeps mentioning sales tax perhaps forgets (conveniently?) that those taxes are imposed by another governmental authority and have NOTHING to do with the federal government. Taking money from some people and distributing to those in excess of what they paid is welfare, it is not tax reform. When less than 50% of the voting age population pay income tax to the fed'l government, what type of society will we have?

Pogo wins this discussion hands-down in the race to proclaim his ignorance as absolute truth. Socialism is understood as government ownership or control of the means of production (a power which Bush just successfully demanded the American people relinquish to Hank Paulson with regard to our financial markets). His refusal to define it for the sake of the subjects of his proposed litmus test (Zach and Roost) says all you need to know.

Obama might have accidentally used an unfortunate and off-topic phrase, and this might have had something to do with the fact (evidenced here) that people tend to look to at measures such as income inequality and progressivity of the tax code as indicators of fairness, but until Pogo can show me one economist who claims that Obama proposes the government take ownership of the means of production at large then it's safe to continue assuming that he's not anti-capitalism. He's favored by the only domestic industries still doing well in this economy (including high tech companies such as Google), and his interest in reducing the costs of health care is seen by the Big Three auto manufacturers as a way to help keep them competitive.

Don't listen to Pogo on economic matters, or to anyone else who wants to sell you their propaganda and litmus-test-laden understanding of topics. States throughout the modern world have generally resolved to err on the side of not favoring government-ownership of industry, even if the Hard Right is stuck in the rut of believing that we're living in the Cold War and that dividing the electorate will still win elections.

Oh come on, we all know what socialism is - it's the huge gray area between capitalism and communism. The more collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat, the closer we get to pure communism. The less collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat, the closer we get to pure capitalism.

The question is, do we want more of it or less?

Obama: moreMcCain: less.

The ups and downs of a capitalist economy bring dynamic ebbs and flows of pleasure and pain. What has a communist economy every brought besides dull diffuse hopeless misery?

Meade said: "The more collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat, the closer we get to pure communism."

"... under the dictatorship of the proletariat ..." That's a pretty big assumption right there, and one that doesn't hold for the political realities that obtain. The fact that the "wishes of the proletariat" were recently audaciously overruled by both parties in favor of the owning classes on Wall Street is a pretty clear indicator of who really pulls the politicians' strings.

Well, meade, it's hard to know who the "we" are that you're referring to. But if you'd link to your blog and whatever other community you affiliate with intellectually then perhaps "we" here could better understand your reasons for using argumentum ad populum to go to war against dictionary defintions.

It would be funny to ask what Meade makes of using a regressive tax structure to increase US debt to the point where China's communist dictatorship has collective ownership of the U.S. economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat, but that might require him to stop regurgitating Marx-Engels long enough to give a damn about the American political economy.

Darcy - thanks for the graciousness of saying you appreciated all the people talking about the need, or the folly, of progressive income taxes.

I think another way of seeing it would be if you and a Wall Street financier were paid in silver ingots instead of electric or paper paycheck. Moreover, imagine a "helpful" person was there to take out all your and the financiers state, local, fed taxes and fees and basic living expenses.

Now, if you are in the 85th percentile, making 80K a year, a monthly payout in silver might be the size of a 5-lb sack of rice for you. For the financier, it would be a like a cord of wood piled up.

Then the "helpful person takes out all you owe gov't and you are left with a pile of silver whittled down to the size of a 2-lb sack of rice free to do with as you please.

Then you look over and see the financiers pile has barely been touched...yes it looks a little smaller, but not much. Maybe 5-10% smaller, if that. That's upsetting! You are screwed and he is barely affected.

You start to walk away a little peeved, but then the with holding guy comes by and grumbles that the financier had an even bigger stack of silver that he couldn't take anything off of, because it was millions in gains tax-free in a firm he owned and reinvested to grow his wealth.Then he stops and says he is sorry, but he forgot you invested part of your money in money market accounts..and he grabs another little bit of silver from you.

Now you are pretty pissed off...then you go outside and see part of the silver you paid handed to the financier to pay for "bad investments". And a wheelbarrow of silver taken from his pile being returned - with the explaination it is special financier pork because unlike you, he took the trouble to donate and help out a Senator in need and had a special earmark put in the budget that gave 5 million to one of his companies..

That's our present tax system....

****************Friscoda - The poster who keeps mentioning sales tax perhaps forgets (conveniently?) that those taxes are imposed by another governmental authority and have NOTHING to do with the federal government.

Defenders of the better deal on total taxes and disposable income the very wealthy gain on each dollar would like nothing more than to say that is irrelevant and no discussion of a plutocrat paying off FICA in his 1st week of work, having all the rest of the regressive state and local taxes amount to 1% of his annual earnings. No - they claim - all that must be ignored and the Federal income tax treated in isolation - and what could be FAIRER than a everyone paying the same rate on income no matter how rich or poor?

With capital gains and reinvestment money in businesses either not taxed at all, or taxed slightly. What could be fairer?

Taking money from some people and distributing to those in excess of what they paid is welfare, it is not tax reform.

Well, guess what, anything you pay out to government that doesn't come back to you in commensurate benefits IS social welfare. I don't have any kids in school and I don't live in New Orleans or a jobless town where all the jobs were outsourced to Asia. My money is transferred to them. Or to pay for some military component. That is how our system has worked since we were the Colonies.

When less than 50% of the voting age population pay income tax to the fed'l government, what type of society will we have?

A society that has too large a government, too many ill-trained workers and investment in new domestic jobs, and a society where for almost 30 years, most new wealth generated has gone to a small group at the top.

I understand exactly what you are saying, but hasn't the financier already paid taxes on the money he is investing in the first place? Why wouldn't we want to encourage him to continue to invest in our economy?

I just don't have the same feelings as you do about the "financier" types.

My grandmother was a staunch Dem. I'll try to keep this short. She paid taxes over and over on the money she made from her "investments" over the years, which happened to be real estate. She started with almost nothing, and continued to actually physically work at these various properties - pulling weeds at some rentals in her 80's. :)

And she never complained about her taxes.

However, when she passed away at age 104, and left approximately 1.5 million in assets to her son and daughter - guess what? The government took 40% of everything over $665,000. 40%!! Of the money she had paid taxes over and over on throughout her hard working life.

Needless to say that made two overnight Republicans of my uncle and my mother. But that's another story.

And the Democrats that you want to elect had to be dragged kicking and screaming along to meagerly raise this limit on tax for inheritance.

I know that some may feel this was still a lot of money, and I can't help that. I can only tell you that I think it was dreadfully unfair.

I simply do not trust that there are enough Democrats who view taxation fairly.

Darcy: in income tax, but not in overall tax burden. Low income people pay a much higher percentage of their income in sales tax. Just food for thought.

While this may be true, keep in mind that sales taxes are local and pay for local stuff like police and schools, whereas federal income taxes pay (primarily) for stuff at the national level.

Besides, most of those at the bottom are paying precisely zero in federal income taxes, and little directly for property taxes. So, you are comparing the 7% (in realistic relatively lower tax states) sales taxes to 35% or so federal income taxes PLUS state income taxes that are often based on the federal.

So, if we are talking overall tax burden, at the bottom you are often talking federal tax rebates offsetting some, if not much, of the local sales taxes.

It's socialism to take from the richer to give to the poorer. It's also socialism to take from the poorer to give to the richer, as the recent Wall Street bailout initiated by the Republicans and approved by the Democrats has done.

Let's be a bit more precise here. The "bailout" was a deal struck between the Sec. of the Treasury and the Democratic leadership in Congress. The Republicans in Congress were essentially effectively cut out of the negotiations until the original version failed.

The idea that the bailout plan was Republican is belied by the fact that there was ACORN funding in it at one time.

But is it socialism to take from the richer INSTEAD of the poorer? I don't think so.

Except for the minor point that Obama's plan is precisely to take from the richer and GIVE to the poorer in the form of income tax rebates. It is being called a "tax cut" for the poorer, but for a large percentage of them (nearing half our population), it is no such thing. Obama isn't suggesting that their current federal income tax rate of zero be cut, but rather that they get money back.

So, please, don't get sucked into the rhetoric of the Obama campaign. It is not a "tax cut". It is redistribution.

There's massive confusion here between socialism and Marxism. Progressive income tax is not, in and of itself, socialist. Has nothing to do with it. As for being Marxist, the key point to remember is that Marx advocated "A heavy progressive or graduated income tax." Heavy being the key word--I would define heavy as 20% of the working population paying all the taxes.

It goes beyond that; Obama isn't simply advocating a heavy progressive tax, but massive increases in tax credits. In other words, lower income people don't merely have their taxes zeroed out, they now make money from the tax system--this is blatant more than wealth redistribution.

If Obama were simply advocating a heavy progressive tax, he would simply have anyone making less than $100,000 pay no tax and have none withheld. Their tax return would be a post card. This would save billions in administrative costs to both business and government.

But that wouldn't allow him to redistribute wealth.

McCain isn't as bad, but too damn close to make him a genuine conservative. However, like far too many "conservative" politicians, though McCain isn't a Marxist, but a kleptomaniac and common thief.

Obama, on the other hand, has a very long history of associating with Marxists and advocating Marxist philosophy. His use of Marxist language isn't accidental--it's an extension of his world view.

(Moreover, speaking as a member of the middle class-we aren't beaten down by anything other than an overaggressive nanny state that feels compelled to intrude on every aspect of our lives.)

In late January Sarah West will be taking well deserved long vacation. Seems she'll be needing to attend an education class of some kind. She'll be returning sometime in March. She won't be making this mistake again...

Pogo, Those books are about the story of totalitarianism, which can (and has) come from either the left or the right.

I gather we share a taste for dystopian fiction, so I should recommend The Wanting Seed*, by Anthony Burgess. It's short, nasty and excellent. Harder on the left than the right, though nobody really gets out clean. Anyway, it's the best of them I've read, and I recommend it without reservation.

*= You can read the first few pages by clicking the "look inside" link by the picture of the cover.